MapleStory Sheet Music Site!

Have you ever transcribed music? Because it doesn't sound like you have. It doesn't sound like you've played piano for very long, at any rate.

You're correct in saying that I don't transcribe very often, as I've never had a need to. I've always played things by ear, so I've never had need to transcribe. That being said, I appreciate your wonderful (emphasized TWICE!) "compliment" of my "piano skills". Lets just say that I've played long enough to know what I'm talking about.

First off, I thought I explained pretty well why I thought the blocked out chords were unnecessary, but let me try again: Anyone who can play at a level high enough (which really isn't high at all, really) to interpret the right hand can also play the left along with it. This isn't some made up theory, I've personally watched several individuals learn piano from scratch; believe me when I say that there really isn't that much of a difficulty spike between the two hands that would warrant butchering the song like it has been. The problem isn't that it's simplified, it's that it isn't simplified enough. Look at it again:





If I were trying to simplify a piece for one of my friend's beginning students, something I've had to do several times, I wouldn't just leave that right hand part there. First off, if I was going to make the left hand that simple I would have the melody in the right hand broken down into a monophony, so it would be easier to pick up for a beginner. But if I were doing that, I wouldn't leave the left hand quite that simple, because right now there is so much dissonance between the two hands that it's comical.

You're right. It COULD be simplified further. But that wasn't what you were saying at first. Here's what you said:

Do you see the problem here? There is nothing "simplified" about this, all that was done is changing the left hand to block out some chords.

What you initially said is that blocking the chords is NOT simplifying (or at least that's what I'm interpreting from that), to which I replied that "it IS simplifying as..."

The point in question wasn't how far it could or should be simplified but whether it was simplified at all.

Would I agree with you that if I were to simplify it for a beginner, I'd do something to simplify the right hand as well? Perhaps.

Would I refute the notion that the second one is simpler than the first? Nope.

Secondly, since I know you're going to home in on this quote here like it's a flower and you're a honeybee fueled by hate:

I'll just take the high road and kindly skip past it. No point in feeding that which lives under a bridge.

This is an incredibly horrible thing to say to anyone trying to learn to write music. Never, ever ever ever do this. The whole concept of practicing one hand at a time (which once you've played long enough, you'll find is actually wholly unnecessary and actually detrimental to yourself in the long run) is only something people do because trying to figure out a new piece of music with both hands is incredibly difficult for inexperienced players. Normally, what happens is that over the years, you'll gradually find that you'll either drop the habit completely for easier songs as you sightread, or as I find most of my peers and colleagues do, piece together the melody hands-separated for measure or two, maybe a line or two if the piece is particularly challenging, and then put them together.

The idea is the same. You segment smaller sections and get familiar with that before moving on to bigger chunks. Again, you're right. At a certain level, people DONT practice hands separate anymore. And while there might be a general consensus that it becomes obsolete, that is not entirely true. Hands separate practice, even after knowing a piece gives you more familiarity with the parts. This is particular of use with Fugues, which breaks it down further, not into hands, but individual voices. Those people who decide to tackle fugues head-on without any hands separate work are probably also the ones who miss subjects and answers and play them as continuous blobs of music.

I'm not sure how you're interpreting what I'm saying, but I think we're talking about essentially the same thing. Simplifying things to make it easier to learn, which is what you're talking about with hands-separated for a measure or two/line or two before putting it together. I'm sorry if I was unclear, but when mentioning those methods, I did not mean to just run through whole works that way; I was referring to practicing them to build the foundations before moving forward. Just like building a house always starts from the foundations, learning to play a piece does as well.

Yes, in some instances, hands separate work is useless (the one that immediately comes to mind is triplet vs. eighth passages), but I would never refute hands separate practice as something "beginner".

If a piece is written with the intention of reinforcing the behavior of practicing with your hands separated or focusing on a particular hand, it is badly written. There are no exceptions to this rule. Piano isn't about having one hand play and the other sit around as backup, it's a musical instrument. Let me put it like this: if someone's playing the flute, they play the notes and whatever they entail, whether that be melody, harmony, or anything else. A well written song or part will have the player playing using the entire instrument.

Again, as a finished product, I would agree. But what's wrong with learning it from the ground up? What's wrong with using the simplified version to learn the basics before moving on to the complete transcribed version?

Piano is no different. A good piece of music won't do something like have one hand be unimportant, it'll have both hands working together to produce a song. That's the goal, and it's why I brought up changing the octave of the piece. Most of the time, as a rule, you keep the activity of a song at the center of the piano. This isn't a hard set rule, but it is something that you'll find as you play more and more music. While many songs do have the pianist away from the center often or constantly, it is very rare to find a piece that consistently keeps the melody off in the stratosphere for no reason. This is one of the other reasons I think you aren't very experienced, because you think that changing an octave could throw off the mood of a song. There is no reason, none at all, that something like the Henesys theme wouldn't sound just as good were it brought down an octave. I'm not saying playing everything two octaves below middle C, I'm suggesting that you simply bring the melody down from two octaves above middle C to one above.

The melody for Henesys is written for a flute. The flute has a range that generally starts at middle C and goes up from there, so songs written for flute are much higher. The piano does not have that limitation, and trying to force a melody written for a different instrument with a different range is an awful, awful idea. Would you say a piano playing a part originally written for contrabass, tuba, or bassoon would have to play the melody as low as those instruments originally did?

And here is where I disagree. Would I play the part originally written for those very low instruments down there? Nope. Simply put, it'd get too muddy down there. That being said, would I move it up all the way to middle C? Nope. I would put it somewhere in between. Different ranges in the piano have different complexions. For example, the very bottom of most pianos are very murky. As it reaches the center, it becomes warmer. As it goes upwards, it has almost a delicate sound. What I'm saying is, the range DOES matter. Think Henesys. Think all that is associated with it. Now think if it still fits if it was sung by a bass.

Or Elgar's Cello Concerto played in that Henesys C5-C6 range. Tell me if it's the same thing.

At that rate, you might as well change the key as well (yes, changing the key changes the mood too. Imagine Henesys in F+ instead of the key given. It would sound less vibrant and lively). Pieces are written in their instruments, keys, and ranges for a reason. If everything were written in middle-C range for the piano, it'd be boring.

In the end, there's more than one way to approach things. Music is an art. As is transcribing. Music can be presented in many different ways, and that's the fun in it: there's more than one way to do it! Perhaps you should get off your high horse, and appreciate the diversity that comes with music, the different methods of learning, the different methods of presenting it, and most importantly, the fun that can come with it. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying there's more than one right way of doing things.